Neither party truly represents us

Mike TowerJust My Opinion

Published: Sunday, August 18, 2013 at 4:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Friday, August 16, 2013 at 11:42 a.m.

I rarely talk to individuals who adamantly support one or the other political party. In fact, most of the folks I talk to describe their political views in terms of not wanting government to waste our money, while also believing in helping the truly needy.

It seems to me this is the perfect description for moderate centrists, which I think best describes the beliefs of most American voters.

However, in spite of a majority of moderate centrists, the partisan political debate remains primarily driven by relatively small numbers of extremists in each party. Politicians from both parties and most national media then design their messages to inflame the passions of party loyalists against the hated extremists in the other party. The majority of moderate centrists in both parties then continue to support their chosen party label. However, many tell me they end up feeling somehow both dissatisfied and disenfranchised.

The real question that all loyalists should ponder is whether any real differences exist in the past actions of either party! Due to space limitations, I can only share a few examples to make my case:

Republicans, under the leadership of Bush 43, led the fight for the Medicare prescription drug plan. Part of the GOP support for this new benefit was a desire/need to convince seniors they were just as worried about them as the Democrats. However, the new benefit was actually created by the lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry with the full support of both parties. It's very likely this industry simply exchanged campaign funding in return for support from both parties.

The payoff to this industry has been immense as this new Medicare benefit provided billions of tax dollars to pay for expensive, patent-protected prescription drugs for seniors. Some seniors certainly benefited, however, we all now know this benefit is both unaffordable and unsustainable.

Then President Barack Obama gets elected partially by promising to fix American health care. His initial stated goals were to provide insurance coverage for the millions of uninsured Americans, guarantee coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, and reduce health care costs for all Americans.

The improvement goals he set were needed and laudable. However, the process he and his fellow Democrats used to deliver these promises was deeply flawed because they ignored the fact that our existing health care system already cost twice as much per capita as any other developed nation. The Democrats then did exactly what Republicans had done — they enlisted the help of the involved special-interest lobbies to craft the law. It's similar to a farmer asking weasels to help build a secure chicken coop.

Why didn't Mr. Obama, with control of both houses, implement a less expensive, single-payer health care system like every other developed nation already had? After all, half of all Americans are already covered by such a plan. The answer is simple: The special interests wouldn't allow it. They had too much to lose if the bloated health care system they feast on was placed on a diet.

Next, look at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush 43 started both needless wars with support from most prominent Democrats. Then Obama, in spite of his protests as a senator, failed to get us out of Iraq one day sooner than Bush had promised, and he extended our time in Afghanistan for no benefit to anyone except the industrial-military complex. Because funding for these two wars was mostly borrowed, our nation is now trillions of dollars deeper in debt.

Add the ongoing housing bubble-caused recession. While Bush complained about the actions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, did he or the Republicans actually attempt to stop the shenanigans? Both parties participated in further setting the stage for collapse by reducing financial industry regulations. Bush immediately responded to the risk of a banking failure by creating the infamous TARP program.

When Obama followed, he immediately increased the Bush bailout of financial institutions, expanded funding for previous Bush green initiatives, and even bailed out General Motors. Who benefited? Not American homeowners or taxpayers. No Wall Streeter, banker or any elected or appointed political official went to jail.

As usual, our politicians, the leaders of financial institutions, favored constituents and even owners of some "green" companies made out like the bandits they were.

Last but not least, the ethanol boondoggle was foisted upon the American people with the support of both parties, and it is about to be expanded to 15 percent in our gasoline.

The evidence clearly shows that our elected officials from both parties, no matter their rhetoric, work for the same special interests — and that's surely not us!

This is why I say neither party works for the best interests of the majority of Americans, and why I cannot claim allegiance to either one. Today I proudly describe myself as a moderate centrist independent American. In my opinion, to maintain a loyalist label for either political party simply denies the truth and equates to being an enabler for the ongoing destruction of our nation.

These are my opinions. What do you think?

Mike Tower lives in Hendersonville. Reach him at mike41tower@gmail.com.

<p>I rarely talk to individuals who adamantly support one or the other political party. In fact, most of the folks I talk to describe their political views in terms of not wanting government to waste our money, while also believing in helping the truly needy.</p><p>It seems to me this is the perfect description for moderate centrists, which I think best describes the beliefs of most American voters.</p><p>However, in spite of a majority of moderate centrists, the partisan political debate remains primarily driven by relatively small numbers of extremists in each party. Politicians from both parties and most national media then design their messages to inflame the passions of party loyalists against the hated extremists in the other party. The majority of moderate centrists in both parties then continue to support their chosen party label. However, many tell me they end up feeling somehow both dissatisfied and disenfranchised.</p><p>The real question that all loyalists should ponder is whether any real differences exist in the past actions of either party! Due to space limitations, I can only share a few examples to make my case:</p><p>Republicans, under the leadership of Bush 43, led the fight for the Medicare prescription drug plan. Part of the GOP support for this new benefit was a desire/need to convince seniors they were just as worried about them as the Democrats. However, the new benefit was actually created by the lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry with the full support of both parties. It's very likely this industry simply exchanged campaign funding in return for support from both parties.</p><p>The payoff to this industry has been immense as this new Medicare benefit provided billions of tax dollars to pay for expensive, patent-protected prescription drugs for seniors. Some seniors certainly benefited, however, we all now know this benefit is both unaffordable and unsustainable. </p><p>Then President Barack Obama gets elected partially by promising to fix American health care. His initial stated goals were to provide insurance coverage for the millions of uninsured Americans, guarantee coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, and reduce health care costs for all Americans.</p><p>The improvement goals he set were needed and laudable. However, the process he and his fellow Democrats used to deliver these promises was deeply flawed because they ignored the fact that our existing health care system already cost twice as much per capita as any other developed nation. The Democrats then did exactly what Republicans had done — they enlisted the help of the involved special-interest lobbies to craft the law. It's similar to a farmer asking weasels to help build a secure chicken coop.</p><p>Why didn't Mr. Obama, with control of both houses, implement a less expensive, single-payer health care system like every other developed nation already had? After all, half of all Americans are already covered by such a plan. The answer is simple: The special interests wouldn't allow it. They had too much to lose if the bloated health care system they feast on was placed on a diet.</p><p>Next, look at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush 43 started both needless wars with support from most prominent Democrats. Then Obama, in spite of his protests as a senator, failed to get us out of Iraq one day sooner than Bush had promised, and he extended our time in Afghanistan for no benefit to anyone except the industrial-military complex. Because funding for these two wars was mostly borrowed, our nation is now trillions of dollars deeper in debt. </p><p>Add the ongoing housing bubble-caused recession. While Bush complained about the actions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, did he or the Republicans actually attempt to stop the shenanigans? Both parties participated in further setting the stage for collapse by reducing financial industry regulations. Bush immediately responded to the risk of a banking failure by creating the infamous TARP program.</p><p>When Obama followed, he immediately increased the Bush bailout of financial institutions, expanded funding for previous Bush green initiatives, and even bailed out General Motors. Who benefited? Not American homeowners or taxpayers. No Wall Streeter, banker or any elected or appointed political official went to jail. </p><p>As usual, our politicians, the leaders of financial institutions, favored constituents and even owners of some "green" companies made out like the bandits they were.</p><p>Last but not least, the ethanol boondoggle was foisted upon the American people with the support of both parties, and it is about to be expanded to 15 percent in our gasoline.</p><p>The evidence clearly shows that our elected officials from both parties, no matter their rhetoric, work for the same special interests — and that's surely not us! </p><p>This is why I say neither party works for the best interests of the majority of Americans, and why I cannot claim allegiance to either one. Today I proudly describe myself as a moderate centrist independent American. In my opinion, to maintain a loyalist label for either political party simply denies the truth and equates to being an enabler for the ongoing destruction of our nation.</p><p>These are my opinions. What do you think?</p><p>Mike Tower lives in Hendersonville. Reach him at mike41tower@gmail.com.</p>